There actually is a wildlife refuge in India (forget what it's called, I'm remembering this entirely from a lecture in one of my classes last term) where, if you're on the refuge grounds after dark, the guards just shoot you. No questions asked, you're assumed to be a poacher and they kill you.

Can we PLEASE stop calling them drones for fucks sake. A drone is a thing but not this thing (actually a drone is an ummanned vehicle, normally airborne, that follows a program that is loaded before the craft is launched. We shoot missiles at drones for practice.)

The vehicles in this story and, in fact, recently making headlines about civilian deaths are actually remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) or uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs). These are machines that are controlled in flight by a human operator who is in a different location.

Source: an Air Force pilot who's just trying to keep the record straight on who's a pilot and who's not.

Exactly my sentiment. Tightening up on poachers isn't the only way to save these animals as the article suggests.
With technology today, you can't tell me that somebody hasn't been able to make a fake tusk and make it look real to decoration purposes or somehow recreate the so called medicinal qualities in a lab without having to kill the animal.

The problem is the perceived value of the item. For example, we have the technology to create artificial diamonds and yet people will still insist on real ones that are mined in war zones under slave-like conditions.

We need to change elements of the underlying culture---almost like an anti-smoking campaign.

There must have been some sort of perception change that occurred in some cultures that makes these items (elephant tusks, etc) undesirable. I wonder if it would be possible to find that out and try to recreate it (or something similar) in the cultures that still desire these things.

Culturally both are very similar but in the past 20 years--as Taiwan got richer--there was a Buddhist revival that really promoted environmentalist ideas.

It made such an impact, that around 10% of the population is vegetarian (for comparison, the US is around 6-7%).

So I do believe it's a mixture of increased wealth and an improved standard of living that allows the people to search for something "more" in life.

In fact, the younger, middle class in China is really leading the way for environmentalist action there. Famous, younger celebrities like Yao Ming speak out against poaching and other destructive acts.

And even among my colleagues in China, it's the younger ones that talk about recycling, sustainability, etc. So I do think there's progress--just hopefully it'll continue and move along faster.

There is no medicinal qualities. It's all in the superstition so no amount of technology will replace it. You can have a horn grown in the lab and it be exactly identical to that of a elephant, but since it doesn't come from a real elephant, it doesn't have the magical powers.

Although I think Obama isn't the right example, I agree with the sentiment that there's a hypocrisy on Reddit on the issue of a "police state." We all think our freedoms are too important to infringe upon with surveillance drones a la the recently defeated plan for such drones in Seattle. But when it's used to catch poachers in some third world country, everything is justified.

Big difference between using a drone in a game reserve, where there's probably more animal than people, and using it in a city, where using a UAV would potentially infringe the privacy of thousands of people at a time.

I would say that in this case, Reddit's hypocrisy is pretty much justified. Except for some of the "we should be using the drones to kill them" comments.

Perhaps not directly but it does give somebody enough intelligence information to do it. Also, everyone gets upset about local city departments using drones in the U.S., this same kind that Google paid to be used in Africa. So, it's okay to do it in Africa but not in our own backyard?

I don't know why a local agency would need a UAV. I think one or two sheriff departments in the southern US use them to search for illegal distilleries but that's it.

Same thoughts apply on a state level, but SOME federal agencies may have a use for them. The forestry service could use them for keeping track of animal herds and forest fires, and even help in search and rescue. While the border patrol can use them to better cover a greater area at lesser cost than manned patrols, though they will still need people on the ground to intercept illegal aliens and drug traffickers.

I think most people are turned off by using drones over US soil is because they believe that the drones are armed. THEY ARE NOT, this isn't a war zone, it isn't going to happen.

As for poaching, I'm all for using drones to prevent poaching in Africa or any other continent. I'm going to stop here on poaching before I start to ramble/rant about the punishment they should receive for their crime. Let's just say I violates some UN rulings.

Google probably uses drones to take aerial photos for making maps and for better quality "satellite" photos. Nearly all cities in the US look like plane or drone photos now.

Donating to this charity might help them get the technology refined and the legal aspects sorted.

Drones could be a very cheap way to make large-scale maps of the countryside. it's gotta be a lot cheaper to use a drone than a human pilot flying across a whole continent again and again in strips half a mile across. Maps in rural areas as good as urban areas would be very handy.

You should hear the discussion many of the high ranking officers are having about this in the military. It is definitely a serious issue all around. At this point though... I don't think anything is going to stop them from using weaponized UAVs.

If you're not engaging an enemy army and you are not being attacked I don't think you should assassinate someone. If somebody is walking the streets of Baghdad and a soldier has a suspicion he is an enemy I would rather they tried to apprehend than just shoot him in the back of the head.

Do you realize how war works? There's no judge or jury on either side- they have to do that for themselves. If there's an armed UAV that can kill 20 bad guys that would otherwise be trying to kill allied soldiers, let them do it. Those UAVs save lives, and saying they're immoral is fucking dumb. War is immoral. Get over it.

A drone is just a remote control plane. The only difference between using a drone and using a piloted aircraft is the risk a pilot takes in the aircraft. They're given the same information, the same targets and the same methods of destroying something, one just happens to be able to do it remotely behind the controls at a safe location and the other does it from the air in the plane.

UAV technology is actually only one component of this multi-faceted effort. The drones are for surveillance will not be carrying weapons or poacher countermeasures. It shows how drones are a great technology that can be used for good, not evil.

However, the problem of poaching is very difficult and $5 mil might not be enough to solve it, considering the amount of people, training, and technology required. Poachers these days are sophisticated and the geographic area that needs to be covered by patrol is enormous. Surveillance needs to be around the clock, day and night, and the technology needs to be robust enough that 1) a dummy can fly it, and 2) a poacher can't easily deny it or take it down.

Source: I am robotics researcher; I met with WWF in-person regarding this effort. I'd like to get involved more, but it seems they're looking more for a straightforward solution and less for some new drone technology.

There's no way a poacher has the capability to take out a UAV unless it's flying 20 feet of the ground. The guys in this picture have Lee-Enfields from the early 1900s. It's not like they're out there toting around stingers.

Edit: Those are rangers, not poachers. But still, I highly doubt poachers have access to equipment that can take out a plane.

If I recall, Hunters were actually good for the reserves. Private hunters would often pay VERY high prices to bag just a single elephant, or tiger or zebra or what have you. Most often, they would buy ammunition and various supplies while there. All these hunting accessories were taxed moderately, and the taxes would go right in to the reserves. The parks could pay for a well trained and well equipped ranger staff, maintenance of the park and its equipment, and the Hunters themselves would serve as rangers in themselves, often reporting suspicious activity. Issuing licenses, the government could also better control how many were killed, locals would now have more incentive to work as guides for hunters rather than guides for poachers, and poachers would now have to face so much hassle that it would deter many of them.

When they got rid of legal hunting of the animals, they got rid of the primary source of money that protected these animals, and now the governments scramble to try and fund ineffective Ranger services and try to secure poorly patrolled parks.

hows that working out for African megafauna? You can do a roll call of lions, elephants and rhinos and by done by lunch. for every animal blown away for sport by GoDaddio, poachers are blasting 20 wild animals.

Who says we can't attack the problem from both ends? Efforts to reduce demand for poached items may help to some extent but it seems highly unlikely that we will ever remove it completely. Seems silly to look at a poacher and say "Well the Chinese are paying 200 dollars a pound for Elephant tusk now, so you can't really blame him."

I guess we should all get used to this sort of thing. This is too good a use of technology not to report on. It's just a shame how the abuses of such powers have to get really bad before the defense of civil liberties kicks in.

Isn't this obviously Google advertising? Now, I'm not usually one to jump at potential company advertisers here on Reddit, but I doubt it is merely coincidence that earlier today there was a thread with many emotional outpouring against African poachers, and now this post just happens to come up.

I think its funny that people are becoming more aware of poaching because of Reddit, or atleast the community is becoming more aware, and as a result some poacher in Africa is getting fucking pissed as shit.

Isn't it a tad hypocritical that white people went to Africa and killed almost all the animals, and then prohibited hunting for the natives?

I'm all for saving those animals, just this thought bothers me. Those 'poachers' might be natives who starve exactly because white people killed most of the animals. I reckon there's not much paid work around there and people have to make a living somehow. Maybe if google would use that money to start creating jobs in Africa or Asia the problem might solve itself.